Is the Pentax 645Z a game changer for Nikon?

<p>When Nikon introduced the D800/e many suggested that MF might die. After watching/reading some interesting comparisons between the D800 and MF I wondered too.<br /> Many have talked about the possibility of Nikon and Canon releasing some X version of their flagships reaching into the 50+ range, another possible nail in the MF coffin.<br /> But then I see that Pentax has just announced a MF camera at under $9000, and apparently with some worthy low light performance. I assume other brands will follow.<br /> Now I wonder if there is any room for a D4X at almost the same price? I wonder if very high MegaPixel cameras will now be the stuff of MF, MF taking over the studio and FF being more the stuff of PJ and sports? I wonder if this new Pentax is a game changer?<br /> <a href="http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/04/new-51mp-pentax-645z-medium-format-camera-cmos-sensor-shoots-hd-video-will-sell-8500.html">Link to the Pentax 645Z</a></p>

<p>I don't think that this will affect Nikon sales at all for existing studio pros, as they probably have a lot in glass, and people that need portability or speed won't look at MF now I suspect.</p>

<p>But... if I were looking for a studio camera and did NOT have a lot of lensing, this would be something I'd look at really really seriously, as Pentax Medium Format in the past was quite awesome.</p>

<p>And for the kind of photography I shoot when I'm not shooting my typical amateur kid photos, I would freaking LOVE this on a good solid tripod in front of something really pretty in the early morning hours in the Grand Tetons or some such place.</p>

<p>Leica has a somewhat healthy price for the most recent digital body. And a equally fine price for a monochrome <strong>only</strong> digital body. Neither has made anyone that I know run and trash their Nikon digital camera body(s.) Until the camera from Pentax has been in use by a few photographers: no one can perform the '<em>I can see the future</em>' routine just yet.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One of the advantages of the 645 system is the number of used lenses that are available to use on this body. When film camera sales collapsed a decade ago, I was able to purchase the 33-55 and 45-85 for pennies on the dollar in new condition (old stock). The new equivalent lenses don't look any different, maybe better coating. Don't have a body yet so the lenses just sit on my shelf in their original boxes. When the new body drops a couple grand, I'm in!</p>

<p>Peter, I have two comments. As for "portability and speed" this Pentax is not bad at all for a MF camera. 3 frames per second is pretty close to a D800 and its weather sealed. As for studio shooters and lenses, the studio is such a controlled environment that often one lens is enough. I know some studio guys that just use a 70-200mm f2.8.</p>

<p>After 35 years of using Pentax and Nikon cameras, my observation is that Nikon and Nikon users pay no attention to Pentax. This new camera is nothing more than a statement by Ricoh that they are a <em>serious </em>camera company.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Is the Pentax 645Z a game changer?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Emphatically <strong>no</strong>, not for Nikon. Maybe for 'blad and PhaseOne whose prices are being undercut, but not for Nikon.</p>

<p>For a start the 645Z isn't really a 645 camera. The sensor is "only" 43.8mm x 32.8mm, which is nowhere near the 56mm x 42mm area of the true 645 MF film format. The 645Z's sensor is a meagre 22% bigger on the long side than a D800's, and not even equal to the difference between the DX and FX formats. Although I admit that the 4:3 aspect ratio is generally a lot more useful for commercial work than the overlong 3:2 ratio of a D800.</p>

<p>The Pentax also has a lower pixel density than a D800 by a factor of about 17%, meaning that for a similar field of view with the same subject distance (i.e. by increasing the lens focal length by 22%), the 645Z lags behind in terms of pure resolution. Always assuming equal lens quality, which is a big assumption.</p>

<p>All the above really dodges the issue of using MF versus smaller formats. Better control over depth of field is part of it, but MF users tend to use prime lenses rather than zooms and work at a slower and possibly more considered pace. OTOH the 645Z can only pump out a leisurely 3 FPS, making the D800 seem lightning fast by comparison. So I see the move toward providing better primes for the FX format a much bigger threat to so-called MF digitals than the other way round. And when Nikon finally get around to fitting a 16 bit A/D converter in their pro cameras I think it might be "game over".</p>

<p>Of course, persuading those that have paid tens of thousands of dollars for a high-end MF digital + lenses that they may have wasted their money is always going to be a big ask.</p>

<p>It's the same sensor as the low-end 'blad and P1 options at a much lower price - if you don't need interchangeable backs. As RJ says, true 645 it ain't - the 80MP backs are still king there. The depth of field thing is a bit of a red herring, since there aren't vast numbers of f/1.4 lenses available in larger formats - though I tend to argue that it's easier to get good performance at f/2.8 on a big sensor than at f/1.4 on a smaller one, so bigger formats have their place. (And I do have a film Pentax 645. With LED numbers in the finder, and everything.)<br />

<br />

If this affects Nikon at all, it might put them off releasing a D3x successor. Which, despite Thom Hogan's wishes, I'll be slightly surprised if they do anyway, just as Canon haven't bothered with a 1Ds4. I like the 645 cameras, and if I won the lottery I'd be looking at one of these, but I'm not about to sell my D800 to get one - and my GAS doesn't stretch that far. (Calumet - RIP - UK once sent me a brochure telling me "everyone can afford medium format digital now it's only £10,000". Which was a bit rich given that all I've ever bought from Calumet was a yellow/blue polarizer.)<br />

<br />

Leica may be a little more scared, since they have a similarly non-modular medium format digital system. Canikon, not so much.</p>

<p>Joe, I take your point that these are crop sensors. Nevertheless they are larger than FX by quite a reasonable amount. I am a member of another forum that is full of studio shooters and your reaction is not typical of theirs. MF used to be very expensive and not flexible. The D3X used to be the king of the studio but given this Pentax I'm not so sure the D4X could ever hope for that title.</p>

<p>Andrew your point about the D3X successor is really where I was going with this.</p>

<p>Nikon already introduced the successor to the D3X over two years ago; it is called the D800 and its twin, the D800E. The days to charge $8000 for high-pixel-count, 35mm format DSLRs are long gone. Canon is more explicit; in 2011, they called the 1DX as the successor to both the 1D and 1DS product lines, despite the fact that the 1DX (18MP) has fewer pixels than the 1DS Mark III (21MP). In other words, officially, the $8000 1DS product line ended with the 1DS Mark III.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the side effect is that dedicated sports/news DSLRs such as the Canon 1DX and Nikon's D4 and D4S are now in the $6000 to $6700 price range, up from $5000 to $5500 for the D1, D2 (D2X) and D3 families.</p>

<p>The so called "D4X" only exists on rumor sites.</p>

<p>Shun: Yes. To clarify my assertions for those who find me incoherent (hello, everyone): I saw the D3x as mostly being a heavy duty studio/fashion (including runway) camera, as with the 1Ds3. There are those who take them into the field, especially if sharing batteries and handling with a D3 or D3s, and there are those who'd like a high pixel count camera that have more in common with the D4 and D4s.<br />

<br />

However, the 5D2 demonstrated just how many people wanted high resolution for landscapes in a cheapish and lighter body, and it sold very well. My opinion is that Nikon learnt, and that they'll only consider a "D800s" (D4s sensor in a D800) and "D4x" (D800e sensor in a D4) if the market somehow justifies having that many high-end bodies on sale, which seems unlikely. I can see far better reasons to have the D4s as the low-light body and the D800 as the high pixel count than the other way around, as Nikon have done - especially with the Df available for light weight low-light shooters. Of course, you can put a grip on a D800, but that only solves some of the problems. Similarly, Canon seems to have learnt that the 5D3 will sell, and gave up on the 1Ds series.<br />

<br />

The 645Z has more in common with the D3x than the D800: it's <i>big</i>. Having been hit on the head by a film 645 that fell out of an aircraft overhead bin, I know this. In a studio this doesn't matter much; on a hike, it does. It won't stop some people - I keep trying to carry big lenses up hills, with varying success - but it <i>will</i> stop others.</p>

<p>With Shun's suggestion that the large body 35mm/FF high megapixel camera line is dead, it leads me to believe even more that there is room for MF under $9k. Although all of this comes too early as the Pentax has not been released yet, if the Pentax does show marked improvement over the Nikon and Sony 36 megapixel offerings it will shake things up IMO. If Shun is right as he usually is and there is no D4X 50+ creature around the corner, I wonder how and if Nikon is going to deal with this new Pentax pushing its way into studios and onto mountain tops.</p>

<p>Phil, I don't even share your view at all. If anything, most of the complaints about the D800 is that 36MP is too many and unnecessary, and the image files are too big.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that well over two years since the D800's introduction, Canon has not bothered to match Nikon's 36MP. Ever since Canon introduced the 1DS Mark III in August 2007, just a few days before the Nikon D3, Canon has pretty much stayed with in a maximum of 21 to 22MP in the last (almost) seven years.</p>

<p>If the D800 is a game changer to the MF market, then for sure the 41MP Lumia 1020 is a game changer to the DSLR market. After all, it also has a lot of pixels, and a good price.</p>

<p>Medium format market is a different game than DSLRs. The D800 didn't change that (it was typical blog-hyperbole) all that significant. So, maybe now MF steals back 0,0001% of the market. It's a $9000 MF camera versus a $3000 DSLR. Game changer - way, way, way too big a word.</p>

<p>Very interesting camera, sure. As is the K3. Pentax deserves more attention, deserves to sell a lot more, as they've got a really line-up, some great lenses and a good price/features/performance. Hopefully their tide will turn a bit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Phil, I don't even share your view at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing new Shun ; o )</p>

<p>It could be that I spend too much time on Model Mayhem talking to studio shooters. Not everyone needs bigger and bigger sensors and more and more megapixels but many studio shooters do suggest that they want more. Time will tell if there is a real market for this type of camera or not but if there is I wouldn't think Nikon would want to be left out of the party.</p>

<p>I for one would still own a 12mp D700 if it had not been stolen. I felt that I had no need for 36mp but once you have them you use them. My computer has no issue with the files and at about $100 per Terabyte I don't really care about storage either.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's a $9000 MF camera versus a $3000 DSLR. Game changer - way, way, way too big a word.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But my original post wasn't really comparing these two cameras. I was saying something along the line that there was now no room for a D4X type camera at $7k or $8k when MF is at $8.5K</p>

<p>$8498.00 at B&H to be exact, and no, not a game changer for Nikon, but a game changer for me. I don't mind slowing down with a bigger set up. For the landscape, and big prints, the Z is a solution. </p>

<p>Interesting comments pro & con. My belief is that a camera is 10% of a photo's quality, person behind the camera is 90%.<br>

"The photograph should be more interesting or more beautiful than the subject photographed."</p>

<p>For several years both Pentax and Mamiya have sold complete medium format digital kits (body, back, finder, and normal lens) for under $10,000. This new Pentax adds some capabilities over the current Pentax 645D, sure, but it doesn't change at all the entry-level digital medium format price point.</p>

<p>The new Pentax is still in many ways a completely different beast from a 35mm-style (full-frame or "APS-C") DSLR. The price differential of the Pentax and Mamiya (to say nothing of Hasselblad etc.!) medium format systems, compared to 35mm-style systems, increases when you consider additional lenses, and those lenses tend to be considerably less flexible. (I'm skeptical that most of the older lenses, which are available at reasonable prices, will really do justice to that 50 MP, 33 x 44 mm sensor--and I say that as a film Mamiya 645 owner.)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For several years both Pentax and Mamiya have sold complete medium format digital kits (body, back, finder, and normal lens) for under $10,000. This new Pentax adds some capabilities over the current Pentax 645D, sure, but it doesn't change at all the entry-level digital medium format price point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, the new Pentax 645 is an update to the old model, but it certainly is not a break through as far as price goes. In fact, the older Pentax 645D is still available at a cheaper price: $6996.95: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/739072-REG/Pentax_17971_645D_Digital_SLR_Camera.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/739072-REG/Pentax_17971_645D_Digital_SLR_Camera.html</a></p>

<p>And you can get a Hasselblad medium-format DSLR with the 80mm kit lens for a little more at $13995: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1040910-REG/hasselblad_h_70380534_b_h4d_40_le_dslr_camera.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1040910-REG/hasselblad_h_70380534_b_h4d_40_le_dslr_camera.html</a><br>

The problem with Hasselblad is that if you need additional lenses, it will really cost you, even though the H lenses are made by Fuji instead of Zeiss.</p>

<p>I too am skeptical with the old lenses. I own medium-format Zeiss lenses. Traditionally, medium-format lenses are not necessarily as good as 35mm lenses because they were compensated by the much larger 6x6 or 645 (or 6x7, 6x9) film area, but that is no longer true for these Pentax DSLRs and even some of the Hasselblad. The Pentax uses a 44x33mm sensor. Therefore, when you use 645 lenses, there will be a crop factor so that just like Nikon DX bodies, wide-angle is an issue, especially since those lenses need to clear the original flange-to-sensor distance designed for the larger 645 film area and mirror.</p>

<p>Unless you already have Pentax medium-format lenses, if I were to invest so much money into a new medium-format system, I would pick a market-leader brand instead of one that is constantly in turmoil. Additionally, it would have been much better to be a system that is designed from scratch for digital with the exact format and sensor size in mind, rather than an adaptation from an old film system with all sorts of compromises.</p>

<p>But then, at least for me, 36MP from the D800E is often too many already.</p>

 

<p>I have read the various comments and to me it comes down to whether you want or need more than a D800 offers both in sensor size and megapixels. Shun said for him 36mp "is often too many already". I fall into this camp as well however I would not describe it that way. I never say "damn I have to many MP's" or "damn my file sizes are too big" but I was satisfied with 12 and I am satisfied with 36.</p>

<p>Yet my needs or your needs or any individual's needs are not every ones. I believe there is a good sized group of people who want larger and more, and it is price and practicality that holds them back. Yes there have been <$10k MF solutions before but with great compromises. This yet unreleased Pentax looks like the real deal although let’s wait until it gets into the hands of the public before deciding. If it holds some real imaging advantages over 35mm/FF at its price it will become appealing to this "good sized group" of studio and landscape photographers. Just look at the comments already, some aren't interested but others are drooling.</p>

<p>The D3X certainly sold a few units at somewhere around this price point, maybe this Pentax will become the D3X of its time. If this Pentax does become the D3X of its time it means there is less room for Nikon to play in that space.</p>

 

<p>Most likely majority of current d800 users have invested a lot in to excellent quality nikon lenses. Will they dump nikon system for pentax system? Maybe some will. I do not see it as a "game changing" event. High end studios using MF digital are a small and specialized market.</p>

<p>So how, 'Niche' is a camera like the Z? The Z is about big pictures right? Why the big picture? Who's house can fit big pictures like these? Not mine. Yet there is direction. How to handle a Z ? One would have to posses extraordinary artistic skills to warrant printing big pictures. We have all seen the big boring picture, as if its size alone justifies its existence. I think we could agree when nailing a great shot that stands on its own conveying emotion, it qualifies as a large print. We have been to some Photo exhibits that are filled with big prints. As a landscape enthusiast Photographer, I would think the wisdom behind the Z would be to have a plan, for example targeting an audience, a, 'Niche' audience with big houses, with big walls, and deep pockets. Bigger, bigger, bigger. Other than that, the Z isn't going to do much for the screen your looking at, unless you were to load a image on the big new high res panels. </p>

<p>I've been reading this and smiling just a bit. For the past year I've read post after post how FX is "so much better" than DX because the sensor is bigger. On & on. All of a sudden an even bigger sensor appears, and I'm reading post after post from the same FX guys, "The bigger sensor isn't THAT much better, no one will notice, it's not worth the extra cost, yada yada." There's also been some posts of "Nikon users won't suddenly drop their lenses to buy the more expensive Pentax lenses," showing total amnesia that some of them have advocated selling off DX lenses to replace with bigger and more expensive FX lenses. I'm finding humor in all this.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent, I get what you're saying, and don't really disagree about sensor envy. The better recent "APS-C" sensors can deliver amazing quality. The better recent full-frame sensors are better still. And I don't doubt that this new one will be amazing. But just to point out:<br>

(1) (assuming prints with a 5:4 aspect ratio common in the U.S. for larger prints) the difference between APS-C and full frame (1.53x or 1.22 stops equivalent) is <em>greater</em> than the difference between full-frame and these (nominally) 44 x 33 mm-sensored cameras (1.38x or 0.92 stops equivalent), and one also faces diminishing returns as sensors get bigger;<br>

(2) the jump from this Pentax / its sensor to the 'real' medium format digital sensors (of 40.4 x 53.8 mm, <em>nearly</em> as big as "645" film, typically 41.5 x 56 mm) is nearly approaching as significant (1.23x or 0.60 stops equivalent) as the jump from full-frame to the Pentax and other cameras with the Sony 50 MP CMOS sensor; and<br>

(3) as a historical footnote / by traditional measures, these 44 x 33 mm sensors are not really even medium format--a relatively modest number of years ago most seemed to agree that 4x4 frames of 127 film (which actually are 40 x 40 mm) are not really medium format, and they have greater area than these sensors (actually 32.8 x 43.8 mm).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Quite often these days I'm stitching D800 frames to make landscape panoramics and even of groups of people at times (e.g. choir, orchestra, I might record 3 frames using a normal lens instead of using a wide angle with much lower quality). The improvement in quality is substantial and you don't have to make a print that covers a whole wall to see it. However, to me, the Pentax 645 digital cameras seem only slightly larger than 35mm and so the cost, to me, doesn't seem reasonable given that one would have to buy a whole new lens system. To existing owners of Pentax 645 lenses it may make sense to buy this kind of a digital camera. Medium format film to me meant 6x7cm negatives and slides but the system I had had no digital future. Those medium format cameras which have a larger sensor (than 33x44mm) closer to the dimensions of 645 film are substantially more expensive (e.g. H5D-60 with 40.2 x 53.7mm sensor is $40000). And that's just one camera body.</p>

<p>Stitching a few D800 frames is a lot more affordable to me and often the results are highly presentable. For my people photography apart from the group shots, the 36MP is overkill and I am likely to go smaller with the pixel count and stay with FX since I like that format.</p>